Re: [sidr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-10.txt> (Securing RPSL Objects with RPKI Signatures) to Proposed Standard

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 11 May 2016 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9BC412D11F; Wed, 11 May 2016 09:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jMEglhwTYyOL; Wed, 11 May 2016 09:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D40612D09A; Wed, 11 May 2016 09:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1b0XDO-0003QP-Bs; Wed, 11 May 2016 16:42:26 +0000
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 18:42:25 +0200
Message-ID: <m2shxoeeby.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-10.txt> (Securing RPSL Objects with RPKI Signatures) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <57332EDB.9090609@innovationslab.net>
References: <20160425184508.30206.46648.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20160428225451.GE123284@main> <57332EDB.9090609@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1SeXfZYKKlWUKC8mEh8eLbb97do>
Cc: IETF Disgust List <ietf@ietf.org>, sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 16:42:35 -0000

> I would propose adding some text to this draft (probably as a
> sub-section in section 2) that says that the SIA defined in RFC 6487 is
> omitted when a certificate is used to sign RPSL objects.

perhaps you might also include your reasoning for this seemingly odd
choice.

> I agree that the original text allowing multiple signatures supports
> the case where the components of the primary key of the object (i.e.,
> prefix+ASN) come from different resource holders. I will restore that
> text.

this is gonna be really simple; no complications at all i am sure.

btw, was this a consensus of the wg?

randy